Re: [Isms] status and future of the isms working group

----- Original Message -----
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email protected]>
To: "David Harrington" <[email protected]>; "Eliot Lear" <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; "Ron Bonica" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 4:37 PM

> 1. I agree that it's time to think about a new architecture which is
> multiprotocol and does not impose the restrictions that 3411 had put on
> SNMP. This work should start from the usage scenarios for SNMP, NETCONF
> and other protocols and how we see them used by operators in real life
> deployments. The example given by David was maybe talked about many
> times, but was not (to my knowledge) put in any document.

RFC3411 was a great piece of work, but turned out to be fatally flawed.  The
first time it was put to the test, introducing a new security model, it proved
unusable.  At the same time, the IESG said it was immutable and the isms working
group wasted years squaring that circle, producing RC5590 which is, to any
independent observer, replacing parts of RFC3411.  So great piece of work,
causing much damage.  With the benefit of hindsight, the isms working group
should have said 'Mission Impossible' and refused to continue until it was
allowed to replace RFC3411 (but I did not see that until 2008:-(

I see no reason to suppose we would do any better now, be it a single or multi
protocol architecture.

At the same time, there is activity currently taking the Management out of OAM,
in the mpls-tp nexus but in other related activities as well and it is that that
I think needs tackling.  What is management?  Can we agree an IETF wide
definition any more? I see
draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def
as just the tip of this iceberg.

Tom Petch




>
> 2. I think this discussion exceeds the scope of ISMS. I suggest to move
> it on [email protected]
>
> Dan
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Harrington [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 4:24 PM
> > To: 'Eliot Lear'; [email protected]; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); 'Ron Bonica'
> > Subject: RE: [Isms] status and future of the isms working group
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > NMRG worked on information/data models (RFC3444) and
> > XML-based NM (e.g., through proxies).
> >
> > I don't believe NMRG ever tried to write a new SNMP
> > architecture document.
> > and in the IETF, WGs have been told that modifying the RFC
> > 3411 architecture is definitely out of scope.
> > The EOS and SMING and ISMS WGs were all told to "work within" the
> > RFC3411 architecture.
> > I think that restriction was part (but only part) of the
> > reason for the failures of EOS and SMING.
> > We only got to modify the architecture in ISMS when we needed
> > to define a transport subsystem in rfc5590.
> > So I don't agree this has been tried before.
> >
> > I think SNMP could be brought out of the 1980's, but first we
> > need to make it easier to add new features, such as new
> > operations, and new data modeling approaches. I think the
> > RFC3411 architecture makes it so hard to write any
> > extensions, even models that fit within the RFC3411
> > architecture, that it greatly increases the complexity.
> > A simpler architecture would allow SNMP to be maintained and
> > updated more easily.
> >
> > Netconf can certainly do some of the things that an extended
> > SNMP might, but netconf is designed for a different usage
> > scenario. I certainly would think twice about using Netconf
> > to repeatedly poll sysuptime from multiple devices across my
> > network as a liveness and reachability detector.
> >
> > dbh
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:48 AM
> > > To: David Harrington; [email protected]; 'ext Romascanu, Dan
> > (Dan)'; Ron
> > > Bonica
> > > Subject: Re: [Isms] status and future of the isms working group
> > >
> > >  While I agree with Juergen on the logistics, I think Dave
> > highlights
> > > interesting work to consider undertaking.  My only concern
> > is that it
> > > seems like people have tried to do this before, in
> > particular in the
> > > NMRG.  What's the trigger for success?
> > >
> > > Eliot
> > >
> > > On 9/17/10 12:11 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:57:31AM +0200, David Harrington wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I would like to recommend a new work item for ISMS - design a new
> >
> > > >> architecture standard for SNMP development.
> > > >> I recommend developing "A Simple Architecture for Describing SNMP
> >
> > > >> Frameworks" that is more consistent with the simpler layered
> > > >> architectural models used for Netconf [RFC 4741, section 1.1] and
> >
> > > >> Syslog [RFC 5424 section 3], to bring simplicity back into SNMP
> > > >> standards development.
> > > > ISMS stands for "Integrated Security Model for SNMP" and it
> > > seems the
> > > > work you are proposing really calls for a different working group,
> >
> > > > likely located in the OPS area not in the security area (as can be
> >
> > > > seen by the ADs you have put on the CC).
> > > >
> > > > /js
> > > >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Isms mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms